[OPEN-ILS-DEV] Alternate Serials Control

[Duimovich, George]

Thanks for that update. 

So there are two approaches and we'll just have to pick which one works best for us or perhaps use aspects of both? Then expect that they'll both be supported and/or eventually reconcilled.  Unfortunately, I haven't seen or worked with 2.0 yet, but on the surface this does sound like it'll generate some confusion for the end user, serials control operator.  

George
NRCan Library / Bibliothèque de RNCan


-----Original Message-----
From: open-ils-dev-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org [mailto:open-ils-dev-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Lebbeous Fogle-Weekley
Sent: December 21, 2010 11:49
To: open-ils-dev at list.georgialibraries.org
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] Alternate Serials Control

On 12/21/2010 09:23 AM, Duimovich, George wrote:
>
> Any particular reason for the use of "Alternate" -- can we not just 
> call it "Serials Control" interface? After all, I take it that this is 
> where all things serial will be further developed.
>

Well, that's not necessarily the case. There's already a different set of interfaces labeled, "Serial Control View" developed by Dan Wells.

Dan's interfaces take a different approach, and in particular they aim to support the grouping of received items into bound units with a high degree of freedom for the user to bind in whatever way works for his or her institution's policy and practice.  That's my characterization of Dan's intent, of course, and I should let him correct, expand and clarify his goals.  It's not /all/ about the binding.

Dan and I have work to do to figure out whether and how to reconcile our differing interfaces and to get the most powerful, useful serials module to cohere nicely into an easy-to-use interface.  That may be a  long road, we're definitely talking about unspecified future versions here. 
Policies, practices and expectations for serials management seem to vary very widely.

Then there's also a little bit of a "legacy" Serials interface to consider as well, that is focused relatively narrowly on MFHD-defined holdings, but no subscription or copy-level information.  Yet another wrinkle to consider.

--
Lebbeous